rpuch commented on code in PR #2840:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2840#discussion_r1395281982
##########
modules/runner/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/app/IgniteImpl.java:
##########
@@ -484,7 +485,9 @@ public class IgniteImpl implements Ignite {
clock
);
- LongSupplier partitionIdleSafeTimePropagationPeriodMsSupplier =
partitionIdleSafeTimePropagationPeriodMsSupplier();
+ ReplicationConfiguration replicationConfig =
clusterConfigRegistry.getConfiguration(ReplicationConfiguration.KEY);
+
+ LongSupplier partitionIdleSafeTimePropagationPeriodMsSupplier =
partitionIdleSafeTimePropagationPeriodMsSupplier(replicationConfig);
Review Comment:
First it was because configuration object seems to be too complex to pass
when you just need to get one property. This is arguable.
But then it turned out that it would be cool to verify from the outside (wrt
configuration) that the configuration returns the same value. Also, this logic
is needed in a few components, so it seems natural to have a common supplier.
We can monitor the situation and later remove the assertions, probably
returning to operating vanilla configuration objects.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
